Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines "domestic relationship", extending its ambit to "relationship in the nature of marriage" and thus extending its protection to women whose marriage are invalid or void under law, or who haven't gone through a formal marriage with their partners (live-in relationships), but are otherwise as good as a married couple.
The meaning of "relationship in nature of marriage" was first considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Veluswamy v. Patchaiammal, where a relationship in the nature of marriage was said to be akin to common law marriages. The Supreme Court laid down the essentials of a common law marriage as follows:
It was cleared by the Supreme Court that merely spending weekends together or one night stands, exchanging sexual favours in return of financial favours are not considered to be "relationship in nature of marriage". In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma the Supreme Court differentiated between a relationship in nature of marriage and a live-in relationship. The Supreme Court gave eight factors which should be considered while deciding whether a relationship can be covered as one in the nature of marriage:
The above list of factors is not an exhaustive list.
Second wives, divorced wives, divorced Muslim wives, widows are all entitled to obtain relief under the DV Act.